There is simply no doubt that Barack Obama is the "black" candidate, with really no claim at all to being a "post-racial" candidate. It is not just Reverend Wright. It is not just that Hillary Clinton is still winning LARGE majorities of the "white" vote. It is that Barack Obama is winning more than 90% of the African-American vote--a margin so large that it is almost impossible to overcome, IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, in states with a large African-American population (in percentage terms).
Numbers here: In North Carolina, assume that there was a 30% African-American vote in the primary and that Barack Obam got 100$ of that vote (not quite true, but close enough for this analysis--see the following). That leaves 70% of the vote as "white" (not totally accurate either, but pretty much cancels out the inaccuracy in the prior assumption, and the numbers are easier to understand this way while ending up not too far from the "truth").
Hillary Clinton is getting about 42% of the vote tonight in North Carolina. If she lost the African-American vote by 30% (not too far off), then she had to win the "white" vote by 60% to 40% just to reach her 42% (and still lose by 14%). The (fallible, and pretty much useless--even encouraging racism in a way--confirm this rough, but likely to be in the ballpark, estimate by suggesting that Hillary Clinton got 59% of the "white" vote in North Carolina).
What was not publicized much is that INDIANA has a pretty large PERCENTAGE of black voters, besides being a neighboring state to Illinois. So in a state where Barack Obama is well known, Clinton faced a "black vote" deficit of perhaps 20%--again a hard handicap to overcome.
Just as there is no doubt that Barack Obama is the "black candidate", who had absolutely no chance to be the nominee without a HUGE margin among African-American voters, it is also true that he is the FAR LEFT candidate--the candidate of elitis, San Francisco type leftists (those like those Obama spoke to in San Francisco when he was so condescending to people who "cling" to their guns an religion because of their frustration--it still being underappreciated that Obama condemned HIMSELF for "pandering" by including in those comments a reference to people who reflexively opposse TRADE because of their frustrations, when Obama appeals to that very "irrational" fear/frustraton of people with his anti-trade deal votes and rhetoric).
For it is true that Obama could not win the nomination, even as the "black candidate", without "white" votes to add to the black voting bloc. He gets those votes from leftist students and "intellectuals" who HATE AMERICA, or at least the traditional America--the very far left.
It is one of the ironies of our time that the most IRRATIONAL people on the left are the most highly educated. As this election has shown, "blue collar workers" who are not AFrican-American generally LOVE this country. They may love their guns and religion, and think it is stupid to allow unrestricted ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, since the effect is to depress THEIR WAGES (besides all of the other bad effects).
In contrast, it is the highly educated leftists who are total, left wing loons. They favor "open borders". They think abortion is the most important "freedom" this country has. They are willing to believe in conspiracy theories that suggest President Bush was complicit in 9/11. They are willing, like Jeremiah Wright to believe that the U.S. government is capable of ANY EVIL, especially under a Repubican President. It tells you where our country is headed when the most highly educated people on the left, who are running the Democratic Party, are irrational loons. Yes, we are talking about the people who are so prevalent on left wing blogs, and in MoveOn.org. It is those far left people, including the media people on cable networks like CNN and MSNBC, or in the New York Times and the Associated Press, who have really promoted the candidacy of Barack Obama. Not only that. They have SAVEAGED Hillary Clinton (who happens to be herself, to the left of most normal human beings.
Yep. Barack Obama is BOTH the "black" candidate in this election (as blacks have provided him with many of his victories with voting bloc type margins), but he is the FAR LEFT candidate (adopted by the loons of the far left as the candidate to carry their banner). That explains totally why Reverend Wright has not hurt Obama that much in the Democratic nomination process (hurt him some, but not fatally) Blacks are willing to forgive Obama almost anything, and many agree with Reverend WRight's message of racial resentment (with, it must be admitted, SOME justification, even if it hurts African-Americans in the end). It goes without sayingthat the far left loons DO agree with Reverend Wright's general thesis that the USA has been a major force for terrorism and evil in the world.
It is enough. It is enough for Barack Obama to win the Democratic nomination--barring a truly amazing revelation in the next few months (that is, barring a major scandal while Hilary Clinton is still hanging in there).
Can Barack Obama beat John McCain? I have given, in this blog, the definitive analysis that Hillary Clinton was HARDER for McCain to beat. That is because, absent a Democratic landslide, Obama cannot win almost any of the states John Kerry LOST, with the possible exception of Ohio. Meanwhile, McCain COULD win several of the states that John Kerry WON (Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and even California become possible for McCain, as McCain only has to win ONE of the states of Ohio, pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and California). Yes, this assumes McCain wins Florida, but he will surely do that against Obama if he picks Governor Crist as a VP, and probably even if he does not. That does NOT mean that McCain will win. It just means that Obama is much easier for him to beat.
WHY might McCain not win? It is because he has NO real message, except that he is more experienced and the "better man". Sure, McCain has a better RECORD of "reaching acrosss the party aisles. But he has NO coherent philosophy He "inspires" NO ONE (okay, some deluded people are probably inspired by him, but not the masses). He (McCain) is STILL trashing the people who sunk his "comprehensive immigration bill" (conservatives), and saying that their rhetoric HURT the Republican Party. What has SABOTAGED the Republican Party, of course, is the lack of a clear message that we have to STOP illegal immigration. Senator McCain and President Bush are the two Republicans most responsible for muddlig a clear Republican message on illegal immigration. "Global warming", which threatens to RUIN our economy (that is, the proposed measures to "do something" about "globaal warming")? Forget it. Republicans like John McCain, President Bush, and even New Gingrich have totally blown the fight against radical environmentalists (who have even taken FOOD out of the mouths of the poor without taking really serious flak). Spending? LOL for Republicans (although McCain is better than most on spending such as "earmarks", but not necessarily on Big Government spending in general for new programs). Federal power and growth? Republicans have pretty much given up opposing the disastrous idea that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to SOLVE all of our problems IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner. REPUBLICANS are no longer presenting the people with a coherent message (except as t the War on Terror, as Republicans should be thankful the far left is SO SOFT on Islamic extremism, and SO HARD on America, because otherwise Republicans would have NOTHING).
Doesn't matter. Richard Nixon was pretty much a modern Republican on domestic policy (even instituted price controls and nominated several of the justices of the Supreme Court who (mis)decided Roe v. Wade the way it went, in combination with President Ford). I never considered Richard Nixon a conservative (I was for Ronald Reagan even in 1968, when I was still at New Mexico State University). In 1972, Nixon had no one who loved him (he really was not very "lovable). The Vietnam War was still going on, although Nixon HAD begun to get us out of Johnson's war. Watergate had already happened, although the full cover up had not yet unraveled. The Democrats nominated far leftist George McGovern, and he got 40% of the vote. Nixon got 60%.
That is McCain's shot. However, McCain may not even be as good as Nixon at taking on the opposition. As this blog has repeatedly said, McCain clearly takes more pleasure in really TRASHING conservatives than he does in taking on leftists. Nixon, in contrast knew who his enemies were.
More fundamentally, the country appears to have lurched LEFT. No, I don't mean that most Americans agree with the leftist loons fueling the campaign of Barack Obama. But those are the people promising EVERYTHING, from peace to health care to racial harmony. They are saying that they know how to have the Federal Government solve AlL of our problems. ALL of the media, INCLUDING FOX NEWS, pretty much buys into the idea that this is the proper approach.
Saying it, and endless propaganda promotng it, does not make it so. That is why it has been the consistent position of this blog that it will be better for conservatives if John McCain LOSES this election. Conservatives, INCLUDING RUSH LIMBAUGH, have already LOST this election. John McCainbeing elected President is NOT a "victory" for conservatives. It is merely a Nixon type (albeit McCain's character is infinitely better than Nixon's) holding action to keep the leftists from getting complete control--with Barack Obama, this means the FAR LEFT will have complete control. The reason I can't vote for Obama is that I am nost sure the country can survive that. But neither am I sure the country can survive John McCain. I KNOW conservatives cannot.
As I have correctly analyzed before, the actual LEGISLATION and POLICIES under McCain are likely to be WORSE than under a Democratic President. That is because McCain is likely to go along with most Democratic iniatives, in the spirit of "compromise" to the extent McCain does not already advocate them. Republicans will NOT be in a postion to fight their own President.
Plus, McCain is NOT going to help conseratives be elected to Congress, or other offices. You already know about him TRASHING the North Carolina Republican Party (for no reason). If McCain comes close, or wins, it MIGHT hold down losses in Congress, or it might not. But McCain is not carrying a message that is going to lift the REpublican Party in general. He is almost carrying a message that does the opposite: you have to watch out for those conservatives, because they can be EVIL people. At "best" McCain might reconstruct a Republican Party in his image of total pragmatism and "compromise"--sort of like the Republican Party was at the time of Nixon. That MIGTHT seem to "save" the Republican Party (for a time). It will DESTROY conservatism.
Nope. I think either Barack Obama or John McCain, especially with a Democratic Congress, is going to lead this country to RUIN. The only question is whether conservatives will be ENERGIZED to pick up the pieces. That will be effectively impossible if McCain is President (plus, the "blame" will be ambiguous between McCain nad the Democrats in Congress). Better to have the Democrats in COMPLETE control, so there is no doubt about the "blame".
Am I wishing bad things upon the country? Nope. I am not a leftist. I hope the country does well, even under leftists, and I would vote for someone I thought would help the country do well. I see NO SUCH PERSON right now. Obama will be a disaster for the country, but so will McCain. When it is likely to be equally disastrous either way, I might as well hope for the result that will help CONSERVATIVES return from the wilderness, and which will energize a new generation of CONSERVATIVE leaders.
That is why I have consistently said that it would be better if a Democrat were elected President. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton (who will NOT win the nomination, unless a miracle occurs). I cannot vote for Brack Obama, because I love the country too much for that. But neither can I vote for John McCain. All I can do is hope for the best--and take comfort in the fact that I can't LOSE any more this election. I am perfectly free to attack BOTH parties and Presidential candidates.
P.S. Rush Limbaugh has only been accused of having a CRUSH on Hillary Clinton (a suggestion of Clinton herself). One comment accused ME of "sleeping with" Hillary Clinton. I do think the comment was meant figuratively. The idea of Rush's operation chaos, which I suggested FIRST in this blog, was that the longer the Democratic nomination fight went on the better it was for John McCain. However, even though I pointed that out (maybe inspiring Rush), I went further. My own version of "operation chaos" was to ELECT Hillary Clinton, in the virtual certainty she would set the Democratic Party and feminism back at least a hundred years--creating a renaissance for conservatives. Yes, Barack Obama may do the same thing (other than the "feminism" part). BUT. I thought the country could survive the Clintons again. We did it before. I am not so sure about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, I am also not sure that we can survive President Johm McCain. So my own version of "operation chaos" seems to have FAILED. At this point, all I have left is hope that things will work out somehow. The only comfort I will take in a McCain victory, and it is considerable, is that such a victory will cause the leftist loons, including the mainstream media, to FOAM AT THE MOUTH. There is a silver lining to all clouds, even when the situation appears darkest. The silver lining of an Obama victory, of course, is that conservatives will be on our way back, if only the country survives.
No comments:
Post a Comment